Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1887-07-30
"TOWN SOCIALISM,"
"Icno." the Critic. Criticized by a
Philadelphia Socialist.

Chicago Hhnr-Occaa, says that ono
Socialist will call free land n minor
issue; and It a minority Of Socialists
vigorously oppose the land movement
they will rctard their own cause"
so far no Socialist opposes the
the land movement, but they criti-
GIVE the assertions of Henry George
and his followers that the payment
Of rent to the State will cure all
social evils. We cannot vigorously
oppose the land movement because
we demand the naturalization of all
land in our platform. But if
"Xcno" would have watched the agi-
tation of Mr. George and his various
interpretations Of his theories he
would not have been mislcd so far rs
to think that there was no difference
between Henry Georges land theories
and the Socialists view Of the matter.
Socialism demands the land as com
mon property of the people, not free
land. But II. George does not in
tend to make the land the common
property Of the people; he does not
intend to disturb the present owners
of land in their holdings; all that he
requires of them is the payment of
the "rent' to the State We would
not be true and faithful b our cause
if we would not criticize these
schemes as insufficient to secure to
the workingman what duly belongs
to him-the full value of his labor
without paying interest to the own
ers of the means of production. But
! Henry George tries to CRAFTY the in
diyidual control Of the means of pro-
duction and the payment of interest
out Of the earnings of the laborers to
whomsoever has his hand on the
means of production which, accord
ing to the socialistc critique of POI
Utica economy are no less the com
mon inheritance of the people than
the land. And in defence of his
theories Henry George vigorously
opposes" SocIalism--hcnce his theo-
ries must be considered by all So
cialsts-not only by a minority-as
II ''minor issue
"a general simultaneous adoption
of co operation is not possible, nor
consistent with democratic socialism,
One of cur planks is municipal
solf-govcrnmcnt,' says "Zeno."
You claim to be a Socialist.
"Zeno," and vet you are rrolm-
eating a00rchsstjc "principlos" which
mean destruction and reconstruction.
We cannot afford to destry one par
tlcIe of the industrial powers of the
present We cannot mike new in
industrial systems as the anarchists
think we can. We adopt the whole
industrial system Of the present and
work it and improve it for the bcne,
fit of all.
But glance over the present in
dustrlaI system mast convince YOU
that we have no ''town industries"
that the factories in one city depend
on the produce of the laborcrs Of
another, sometimes thousands of
miles distant. Very little of the
produce of many factories is con-
sumed at the place where they are
located, the bulk of it sent all over
the country Here in Philadelphia
we have extensive locomotive works,
saw-factories, textile factories, etc.
DO Won suppose that we use all the
locomotives, saws aud calico these
factories turn ont in Philadelphia ?
No, sir; these articles are sent all
over the country. We could not usc
them even with the highest devel-
oped consumption one can imagine
But suppose we are going to adopt
clown Socialism," what shall we do
with all the weayers, saw makers,
etc, who are mot wanted" to make
the necessary machines, saws, calico,
etc, needed in Philadelphia? What
shall we do with all the buildings
and implements used in the manu-
facturc of the above articles? Let
them lie idle? or destroy them
Just think of it.
! We need every bit Of the industrial
system of the present, and, more
over, we need the concentration of
the industrial powers, since we know
that the more they are concentrated
and Systematically controlled and